zlacker

>>foodst+(OP)
The fearmongering about Pluton feels very similar to the criticism that was levied against UEFI Secure Boot when it was being debuted. In the end, x86 systems didn't become any more locked down.

I predict that this will blow over, and won't be a big deal in a few years time once FOSS drivers for what is effectively just a new breed of TPM are released.

If in five years, it turns out I was wrong, I'll eat my hat. Although defining "my hat" by then might be difficult, as it'll probably be subscription based.

>>messe+sa
> In the end, x86 systems didn't become any more locked down.

I realize it was only introduced as of ~2012 and it's been 10 years, but I'm not sure we can draw a conclusion on this one just yet. Windows 11 took a huge leap in that direction so for all I know it might take another decade; it certainly doesn't look like they've given up on the idea of locking down the desktop just yet.

>>datafl+9f
>it's been 10 years, but I'm not sure we can draw a conclusion on this one just yet.

seriously? 10 years is an eternity in tech, and if they really did lock down the desktop a few years from now with some new system (eg. pluton), I'm not really sure that you could say "I told you so" or "TPM caused the platform to be more locked down". It'd be like predicting some sort of smallpox attack by china in 2010, then claiming you got it right in 2020 because of corona. The only plausible scenario where you could plausibly blame TPM/UEFI is if OEMs suddenly decided to remove the ability to add user keys and/or disable secureboot.

>>gruez+dg
In fairness, I think they have a point. 10 years is usually an eternity in tech, but we're talking about a system that's still compatible with systems from the 80s; so I think that expecting things to occur on extended timelines isn't unreasonable.

>>messe+bh
How long computers can last isn't really relevant here. What's relevant is how fast new systems get developed, and whether a given system can be blamed for some action a few decades down the road. For instance, let's look at HTTPS. It was implemented to secure web traffic, but also plausibly can be used to lock down who can publish websites (eg. by refusing to issue certificates). However, in its current form it's not really problematic because there are many easy workarounds (eg. using http, adding an exception, etc.). Suppose 5 years from now all the browser/OS vendors go rogue and lock everything down. All web traffic must be conducted via HTTPS with a valid certificate, and all of the workarounds are removed/patched. Can you point to the introduction of HTTPS and say "see I told you! 1994 was the beginning of the end for the open web. We really should have opposed it when we had the chance!"?